A live map of reasons and replies
After AD 30, did the Jerusalem Church fall for a lie that Mary witnessed Jesus's tomb empty?
Trace the strongest lines of support, challenge each claim, and follow every response as far as the reasoning goes.
supporting
challenging
Before you begin
Orient yourself to the question
01 Our question
The Jerusalem church was the apostolic church that immediately arose soon after Jesus's death in AD 30, and his purported resurrection. It seems these Christians early on publicly maintained that Jesus's tomb was found empty, and in particular it was found empty by various Easter women, including Mary Magdalene. Could this belief of there's actually be erroneous and formed as a result of Mary and these womeny lying about having witnessed Jesus's tomb empty?
The argument field
Follow a claim. Test its reply.
Open any reason to read its case. Linked claims take you deeper into the tree.
For
Supports this claim
-
The church was not susceptible
01 Supporting reason The church was not susceptible Read argument
The Jerusalem church was such that it was not inherently susceptible to falling for such a lie. After all,
- They would not have seen sufficient reason to believe the lie. (for example, “Who are you and/or your source to teach us?”).1
- They would have seen compelling reason to refrain from believing the lie: It was flagrantly suspect.
Sources and notes
- Those reasons are as follows:
• It is unacceptably late (e.g. “If that were true, we'd have heard about it long ago!”); this is accentuated by their straightforward awareness of the fact that Mary was a well-known member of their church.
• It's enticingly falsifiable (for example, “We'll get Mary's feedback before accepting this, much less endorsing it!”). After all, the Jerusalem sought/lionized relevant eyewitness testimony, and Mary and her feedback were overtly accessible to them
Paul Althaus (Theology professor at Göttingen): “In Jerusalem, one could not think of the grave as empty without being certain, without there being testimony, that it had been found empty.” [Die Wahrheit des kirchlichen Osterglaubens (Bertelsmann, 1940), 23.] (As cited/translated by Dale Allison).
-
No one would attempt such a lie
02 Supporting reason No one would attempt such a lie Read argument
No early Christian would even try to spin such a lie (this is especially true of anyone lying to the Jerusalem church). One reason we know this is that the Jerusalem church is famously more informed than any would-be informer.1
Sources and notes
- Any would-be liars would be hyper-aware of the following:
• Such a lie would clearly be unacceptably late (E.g. “If that were true, we'd have heard about it long ago!”); this is accentuated by any would-be liar's straightforward awareness of the fact that Mary was a well-known member of their church.
• Such a lie would be enticingly falsifiable (E.g. “We'll get Mary's feedback before accepting this, much less endorsing it!”). [See footnote 1 above.] After all, the Jerusalem church sought/lionized relevant eyewitness testimony, and Mary and her feedback were overtly accessible to them.
- Any would-be liars would be hyper-aware of the following:
-
Their belief came from Mary
03 Supporting reason Their belief came from Mary Read argument
The Jerusalem church's belief was actually grounded in Mary's testimony. (After all, the Mk 16:1-8 report that “Mary saw Jesus's tomb empty” had already originated/formed from _within _the Jerusalem church, specifically in c. AD 30, and specifically by Mary Magdalene1). This is relevant because Mary's autobiographical report that she discovered Jesus's tomb empty was not a lie.
Sources and notes
- We know Mary formed it for three reasons:
• Mk 16 cites her as its ultimate accessible eyewitness source[Forthcoming],
• The church was not susceptible to such a lie,
• Insofar as it was common knowledge that the church was not susceptible, it is unlikely that a liar exist there who would even try.
- We know Mary formed it for three reasons:
Against